Intel Responds to Complaints About Microcode Benchmarking Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,859
0
19,780
0
Fix the darn problems and be frank about them, not cover them up by prohibit things like a benchmark - That's the way a trustworthy company operates. -1 trust to intel for this no benchmark bs!
 

almarcy

Reputable
Mar 20, 2014
33
0
4,530
0
It is difficult for a vendor to adjust operator head space. Possibly impossible, but, we just keep trudging. Patching is the only way to justify 80% of our management overhead.
 

BulkZerker

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2010
846
8
18,995
2
"Sir, the patch is done, but it tanks performance..."
"Don't you dare say it, the patch works everything is fine nothing uas changed hut the product is now more secure, it's a win for everyone. Is that clear?"
 

funguseater

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2009
601
5
19,065
49
Or is this to keep people from running coffee lake on z170 boards hmmmmmmm. If a Chinese branded h110 board supports sky - coffee lake you know they all can.
 

wownwow

Commendable
Aug 30, 2017
37
1
1,535
0
"L1 Terminal Fault"

The mitigation is to reduce the risks, not eliminate them!

Even worse, by peeling the onions people don't know how many more INTENDED cheats of not following the specs are still inside!
 

holmes4

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
4
3
10,510
0
I have a theory as to what happened here. (I am retired from Intel.) The wording about benchmarking was typical for beta products (hardware and software). I think someone just misunderstood what the purpose was of the microcode update and picked the wrong text file. (Not that they'd admit this, of course.)
 

Kourgath223

Reputable
Jul 22, 2016
7
0
4,510
0
So are you guys going to run some benchmarks with this microcode update to see if Intel was trying to hide anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS